Science 'versus' God?

[melanie]

How do we define God anyway?
By vague statements like ' God is not definable', which in itself means God is a vague concept.

This conceptual universe is an unavoidable self evident phenomena.


All that there is
IS ''Perception''

-----everything else is just memes.

[melanie]

This conceptual universe is an unavoidable self evident phenomena.


All that there is
IS ''Perception''

-----everything else is just memes.

You are what observes, not what you observe.

What you observe is transient, temporal, impermanence.


All is Consciousness/Awareness

One without a second, unequivocally...(Permanent)

All Objects appear in That.
(Objects meaning - the world, thoughts etc)

[Max™]

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Easily reversed assumption to state the opposite, that the nature of chemistry, biology, and calculations themselves regarding the Universe makes the presence of life and mind a foregone conclusion simply because it is not prohibitive. Unfortunately there is no signature of a creator at the bottom of this page.

George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

It isn't finely tuned to make life, it is finely tuned to make stars, we're just an after effect. We are not the center of everything, we're a bit of litter that woke up and started asking questions.

Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Same as above.

Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

I find it improbable that this Universe is primal, the first Universe ever, realizing that makes statements such as this one somewhat less meaningful.

John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

...if the Universe had not turned out in this way, obviously we would not be here, we are products of it, not the reason.

George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Baseless, grasping at straws.

Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

The terms "I think" and "fairly plausible inference" amount to "I guess so, why not?" more or less.

Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

No it doesn't suggest a creation out of nothing, nor does it suggest it was tuned to produce us. Putting the effect before the cause is ridiculous.

Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

I would say it is here because it must be, that's just how infinity works.

Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

I admit that I tried, it did not provide anything resembling an answer, nor any sort of comfort. So I discarded it as a bad theory.

Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

Grasping at straws.

Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”

While I disagree with him on many things, this is the best statement yet. Not asking is there a god, or stating illogically that there must be. Simply asking why we find ourselves within a Universe.

Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”

I would just say that it is described by mathematics because it IS mathematics.

Mikal

I'll stop there, for now.

[sillysally]

How do we define God anyway? By vague statements like ' God is not definable', which in itself means God is a vague concept.

God is gaudy. Then there is Gad, king David's prophet. In Hebrew his name means good luck, fortunate. Gad was also a diety worshiped by some Hebrew sects. Where I come from the word gad means nasty, vulgar, distasteful, gaudy.

[Meem]

From where do you hail, and where to do you sail ... Silly Sally, sells science by the sea shore?


Why is Science Vs. God? I've always kind of thought, God was The Scientist. The first one to figure "it all out." Gawd is a guady invention of man, whom are also nasty, vulgar, and distasteful. God however is not any of the things we can conjour up, definitely something more. Er ... you know what I mean?

The Myth of Er I like the whole thing. but these are the best parts. in my opinion.

When Er and the spirits arrived, their duty was to go at once to Lachesis; but first of all there came a prophet who arranged them in order; then he took from the knees of Lachesis lots and samples of lives, and having mounted a high pulpit, spoke as follows: 'Hear the word of Lachesis, the daughter of Necessity. Mortal souls, behold a new cycle of life and mortality. Your genius will not be allotted to you, but you choose your genius; and let him who draws the first lot have the first choice, and the life which he chooses shall be his destiny. Virtue is free, and as a man honours or dishonours her he will have more or less of her; the responsibility is with the chooser --God is justified.'

A man must take with him into the world below an adamantine faith in truth and right, that there too he may be undazzled by the desire of wealth or the other allurements of evil, lest, coming upon tyrannies and similar villainies, he do irremediable wrongs to others and suffer yet worse himself; but let him know how to choose the mean and avoid the extremes on either side, as far as possible, not only in this life but in all that which is to come. For this is the way of happiness.

And according to the report of the messenger from the other world this was what the prophet said at the time: 'Even for the last comer, if he chooses wisely and will live diligently, there is appointed a happy and not undesirable existence. Let not him who chooses first be careless, and let not the last despair.' And when he had spoken, he who had the first choice came forward and in a moment chose the greatest tyranny; his mind having been darkened by folly and sensuality, he had not thought out the whole matter before he chose, and did not at first sight perceive that he was fated, among other evils, to devour his own children. But when he had time to reflect, and saw what was in the lot, he began to beat his breast and lament over his choice, forgetting the proclamation of the prophet; for, instead of throwing the blame of his misfortune on himself, he accused chance and the gods, and everything rather than himself.

"So when hed finished speakin, he turned back towards the window,
Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep.
And somewhere in the darkness the gambler, he broke even.
But in his final words I found an ace that I could keep."

[Mikal]

I'll stop there, for now.

Hi Max...only too happy to provide you with "Food for thought"....if your thinking in the world then nobody else is thinking for you...the mind is rich or impoverished!!!

Regards Mkal

[sillysally]

From where do you hail, and where to do you sail ... Silly Sally, sells science by the sea shore?

I come from the mother home. I go where no man has gone before.

[austintorn@aol.com]

[Profpat]

I was thinking the other day, that science actually seeks God. Or at least Truth and Beauty and Reason. " I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details " A. Einstein.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The color-illustrated version of the Bible is here:

http://gallery.me.com/austintorney/100725